ABSTRACT
Previous studies on campaign speeches in Nigeria have tended to be a
description and analysis of style, innovative and persuasive strategies
of politicians, and manipulation of linguistic structures to champion
individual interest in presidential election campaign speeches. There is
the need to investigate how texts reproduce and sustain power and
unequal power relations in campaign texts and how ideological or
political undertone was projected in gubernatorial campaign speeches.
The study uses Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the role of
language in creating and sustaining power relations as well as
ideological structures in South-Western Nigeria. These power relations
are created, enacted and legitimated by the application of certain
linguistic devices. The researcher attempts to unravel hidden meanings
and connotations of power in selected gubernatorial campaign speeches in
South-Western zone namely: Ekiti, Lagos, Ondo and Osun states. The data
for the study were purposively sampled from gubernatorial campaign
speeches made in the four states during the 4th republic precisely 2007 -
2014. A total of eight speeches (two from each gubernatorial candidate
of Ekiti, Lagos, Ondo and Osun state) were sampled and analyzed. The
study drew from Fairclough‟s (2001) Members‟ Resources (MR), Van Dijk‟s
socio-cognitive approach (2004), and principles from Halliday‟s system
of mood and modality as theoretical bases. The findings show that the
South-Western gubernatorial aspirants deployed language as a strategy of
domination and supremacy by exploiting lexical items and strong
imperatives which allow them to impose their views on others. They
created, by means of their campaign texts, asymmetrical power relations
of privileged „we‟ and less privileged „others‟. Another form of
dominance or power abuse is mind control which is also a form of
manipulation through interference with processes of understanding the
formation of biased mental models and social representations. This is
mainly achieved through persuasion, coercion, and information- giving
strategies. Thus, the candidates employ certain declaratives to
neutralize the asymmetrical power relations that exist between them and
the electorate when they want to liberalise power. This, usually, had
the effect of reducing the authority of the candidate. The aspirants
also used discourse structures that have implications for ideology as
weapons of persuasion and pleading, positive self-representation of „us‟
and negative other representation of „them‟, negotiation and
personality projection. Additionally, the findings also reflect
figurative expressions that are implicitly used to project different
ideological positions of the aspirants. The figurative expressions
predominantly used were metaphor, mainly metaphor of religion, time,
journey, sports, violence and animal innovations which were used to
project positive ideology of self and negative ideology of the other.
There were also instances of linguistic items like idiomatic
expressions, parallel structures, hyperbolic expressions and rhetorical
devices used to unfold hidden ideological meanings. In the sampled data,
there are some linguistic items which need to be drawn from the
speakers‟ cognition, and this can be accounted for by Fairclough‟s
Members‟
Resources. Based on these findings, the researcher recommends that
text producers and consumers should be aware of the hidden ideologies
and coercive elements in
texts, and this will inspire them on how to use and accept certain
discursive practices. Such empowerment is important to enable the people
to determine the true interests of the speeches and for them to be more
active and less gullible citizens. The study, therefore, concludes that
in actual sense, the plethora of texts produced, distributed and
consumed in the 2007-2014 gubernatorial electioneering campaigns in the
South-Western Nigeria not only promoted asymmetrical power relations,
they also produced, reproduced, legitimized and maintained social
structures that sustain domination.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Discourse is all around us, whether we are looking at the esoteric
language of a scholarly report, the imperative appeals to consumerism in
advertising or the exchange of words performed in a dialogue. In all of
these instances of discourse, there are certain underlying rules, and
each of these is in turn dependent on the social context in which the
discourse takes place. A dialogue between a parent and a child is
different from a political speech, in terms of ideology, power relations
and usage of words. Election campaigns and other types of political
discourse are all fields of ideological battles which can be subjected
to Critical Discourse Analysis. This is not surprising because, as van
Dijk (11) says, it is eminently here that different and opposed groups,
powers, struggles and interests are at stake. In order to be able to
compete, political groups need to be ideologically conscious and
organized. Discourse analysis challenges us to move from seeing language
as abstract to seeing our words as having meaning in a particular
historical, social and political condition. Our words are politicized,
even if we are not aware of it, because they carry the power that
reflects the interest of those who speak. Discourses can also be used
for an assertion of power and knowledge, and they can be used for
resistance and critique. One such occasion where discourse can be used
to assert, sustain and legitimize power is campaign speeches.